Drug testing for Welfare payments

[vvvvvvv]

Actually they should drug test them right before they assign them their schedule to pick up trash in the parks, on the streets, clean state and federal office buildings. People with other skills can babysit for those working or picking up kids. Make them work for a check about 20 hours a week and see how many all of a sudden find jobs. Since we pay people good money to do this state and federal stuff we could get something for our warfare money while saving the government money.

Why pay them? Drug court already provides free labor.

 

[inactive]

FWIW, if I started quoting foxnews I'm sure some people would be up in arms. Rightly so.

 

[SMS]

Either way, for the .gov to do it without cause other than that the applicant is signing up for welfare is an unreasonable search.

No it isn't, it's a voluntary program. They don't have to sign up for welfare, just like I didn't have to join the military.

You want the cash...prove you aren't going to piss it/smoke it away, that's all most of us are saying.

But alas, we are going in circles...arguing about a program that shouldn't exist in the first place...at least not on the grand scale it does now.

 

[Werewolf]

I am actually using this to ask the question of "where do we draw the line?" TANF? SSI? Earned Income Credit? Medicaid? Jury duty pay? IRS stimulus checks?

My Take:

SSI - earned; not welfare
Earned Income Credit - wealth redistribution/socialism - not earned; is welfare
Medicaid - for kids whose parents can't get health insurance - society obligation for everyone else; welfare
Jury Duty - earned/societal obligation; not welfare
IRS Stimulus Checks - the government is giving back what it stole and wasted - earned; not welfare.

Society has no moral or ethical duty IMO to support anyone except in cases where one is incapable of doing for one's self due to mental or physical handicap one is born with. Where one has either a mental or physical handicap due to bad choices then it just sucks to be you. Sink or swim dog. Sink or swim.

 

[justinsaneok]

Obama = Change you can STEP in... LMAO

 

[dutchwrangler]

My Take:

SSI - earned; not welfare
Earned Income Credit - wealth redistribution/socialism - not earned; is welfare
Medicaid - for kids whose parents can't get health insurance - society obligation for everyone else; welfare
IRS Stimulus Checks - the government is giving back what it stole and wasted - earned; not welfare.

My take is that they are all unconstitutional as they are not enumerated powers. The last isn't coming back to me or you. Thus, they are null, void and non-binding. That being said, it is because people fear the PHYSICAL FORCE/VIOLENCE that government will bring to bear that people will continue to allow their property to be stolen. The only tool at the disposal of government to use to coerce compliance is PHYSICAL FORCE against people's bodies. Batons, tazers, rubber bullets, tear gas, lead bullets, bombs, nukes... you will comply or risk death. Keep on supporting government folks. You're simply enslaving yourselves. Pity only a handful on this forum realizes this.

 

[okie_gunslinger]

Actually they should drug test them right before they assign them their schedule to pick up trash in the parks, on the streets, clean state and federal office buildings. People with other skills can babysit for those working or picking up kids. Make them work for a check about 20 hours a week and see how many all of a sudden find jobs. Since we pay people good money to do this state and federal stuff we could get something for our warfare money while saving the government money.

I'm all for this, I don't see why we can't reinstate programs like the CCC or WPA too. The only downfall is you would have to create a new government agency or expand an existing one to oversee it's execution

 

[okie_gunslinger]

Just because the pilot program failed doesn't mean the idea is flawed. Looks like the program was set up poorly. Who was doing the testing? How often did the recipients test? What kind of test did they use? etc....loved the part where they increased the payout to cover the cost of the test. Umm, no you can cover that cost if you want to be in the program.

The fact that they were charging $35 per test is a red flag...testing tech has come a long way in 10 years since this program. A 10-panel dip strip that covers the entire range of the most commonly used drugs costs a whopping $3 and takes 3 minutes to administer from start to finish. Not every test needs to go to a lab.

While I agree that the sample size for the that example is really too small, the results from that pilot program do closely mirror the current percentages were seeing out of Florida so it might be somewhat valid.

As for the testing, you have to remember that paying for the strip is only a small part of the testing cost, The companies have to pay personnel who are responsible for administering the test and a lab technician to analysis the outcomes both of whom are handling human waste, When you add in the fact that the company probably has to meet all sorts of government regulations, certifications, and inspections, $35 per test really isn't all that much.

 

[Mgarza_a]

My take is that they are all unconstitutional as they are not enumerated powers. The last isn't coming back to me or you. Thus, they are null, void and non-binding. That being said, it is because people fear the PHYSICAL FORCE/VIOLENCE that government will bring to bear that people will continue to allow their property to be stolen. The only tool at the disposal of government to use to coerce compliance is PHYSICAL FORCE against people's bodies. Batons, tazers, rubber bullets, tear gas, lead bullets, bombs, nukes... you will comply or risk death. Keep on supporting government folks. You're simply enslaving yourselves. Pity only a handful on this forum realizes this.

What property are we talking about? I thought we were talking about Urine...and if thats the case, the government is more than welcome to come on over and take all they want. Fresh from the souce...

 

[okie_gunslinger]

DCF said it has been referring applicants to clinics where drug screenings cost between $30 and $35. The applicant pays for the test out of his or her own pocket and then the state reimburses him if they test comes back negative.

Therefore, the 38 applicants in the Central Florida area, who tested negative, were reimbursed at least $30 each and cost taxpayers $1,140.

Meanwhile, the state is saving less than $240 a month by refusing benefits to those two applicants who tested positive.

It damn sure isn't ever going to "save a ton of money". It may not cost a ton, but it's not going to save anything.

Ok according to these number here is the break down of cost and savings per 100 people per year when we accept a 96% pass rate with only a 2% failure rate
Testing Cost $30 Per person = 2880 a month and 34560 a year per 100 people tested
Testing Cost $35 Per person = 3360 a month and 40320 a year per 100 people tested

If we accept that 240 a month is the average amount saved per 2% rejected over a year we will see only a savings of 17,640 per 100 people tested.

We would have to double the average amount saved from the declined 2% before we would even break even from the program.

Here is how I arrived at my total of 17,640. If we assume that the program begins in January the 2% who are who are denided benefits would have 12 months left in the year with which to draw benefits, those denied in Febuary only 11 months in the year left to draw benefits, and those denied in March only 10 months left in the year to draw benefits.